State Bar Court of California

Hearing Department



Case Number(s): 06-O-13546-DFM

In the Matter of: Bruce R. Fink, Bar # 47788, A Member of the State Bar of California, (Respondent).

Counsel For The State Bar: Janet S. Hunt, Bar # 97635

Counsel for Respondent: Ellen Pansky, Bar # 77688

Submitted to: Settlement Judge – State Bar Court Clerk’s Office Los Angeles.

Filed: November 27, 2007.


Note:  All information required by this form and any additional information which cannot be provided in the space provided, must be set forth in an attachment to this stipulation under specific headings, e.g., "Facts," "Dismissals," "Conclusions of Law," "Supporting Authority," etc.

A. Parties' Acknowledgments:

1.    Respondent is a member of the State Bar of California, admitted January 7, 1971.

2.    The parties agree to be bound by the factual stipulations contained herein even if conclusions of law or disposition are rejected or changed by the Supreme Court.

3.    All investigations or proceedings listed by case number in the caption of this stipulation are entirely resolved by this stipulation and are deemed consolidated. Dismissed charge(s)/count(s) are listed under "Dismissals."  The stipulation consists of 8 pages, not including the order.

4.    A statement of acts or omissions acknowledged by Respondent as cause or causes for discipline is included under "Facts."

5.    Conclusions of law, drawn from and specifically referring to the facts are also included under "Conclusions of Law".

6.    The parties must include supporting authority for the recommended level of discipline under the heading "Supporting Authority."

7.    No more than 30 days prior to the filing of this stipulation, Respondent has been advised in writing of any pending investigation/proceeding not resolved by this stipulation, except for criminal investigations.

8.    Payment of Disciplinary Costs-Respondent acknowledges the provisions of Bus. & Prof. Code §§6086.10 & 6140.7. (Check one option only):

checked. Costs are added to membership fee for calendar year following effective date of discipline.

<<not>> checked. Costs are to be paid in equal amounts prior to February 1 for the following membership years: .  (Hardship, special circumstances or other good cause per rule 5.132, Rules of Procedure.)  If Respondent fails to pay any installment as described above, or as may be modified by the State Bar Court, the remaining balance is due and payable immediately.

<<not>> checked. Costs are waived in part as set forth in a separate attachment entitled "Partial Waiver of Costs".

<<not>> checked. Costs are entirely waived.

B.     Aggravating Circumstances [for definition, see Standards for Attorney Sanctions for Professional Misconduct, standard 1.2(b)]. Facts supporting aggravating circumstances are required.

checked. (1)             Prior record of discipline [see standard 1.2(f)].

checked. (a)                    State Bar Court case # of prior case 80-O-99-OR
checked. (b)                   Date prior discipline effective 5/17/82
<<not>> checked. (c)      Rules of Professional Conduct/ State Bar Act violations: Unknown
checked. (d)                   Degree of prior discipline Private Reproval
<<not>> checked. (e)      If Respondent has two or more incidents of prior discipline, use space provided below or a separate attachment entitled “Prior Discipline”. N/A.

<<not>> checked. (2)   Dishonesty:  Respondent's misconduct was surrounded by or followed by bad faith, dishonesty, concealment, overreaching or other violations of the State Bar Act or Rules of Professional Conduct. 

<<not>> checked. (3)   Trust Violation:  Trust funds or property were involved and Respondent refused or was unable to account to the client or person who was the object of the misconduct for improper conduct toward said funds or property.

<<not>> checked. (4)   Harm:  Respondent's misconduct harmed significantly a client, the public or the administration of justice.

<<not>> checked. (5)   Indifference:  Respondent demonstrated indifference toward rectification of or atonement for the consequences of his or her misconduct.

<<not>> checked. (6)   Lack of Cooperation:  Respondent displayed a lack of candor and cooperation to victims of his/her misconduct or to the State Bar during disciplinary investigation or proceedings. 

<<not>> checked. (7)   Multiple/Pattern of Misconduct:  Respondent's current misconduct evidences multiple acts of wrongdoing or demonstrates a pattern of misconduct.

<<not>> checked. (8)   No aggravating circumstances are involved.
Additional aggravating circumstances: .

C. Mitigating Circumstances [see standard 1.2(e)]. Facts supporting mitigating circumstances are required.

<<not>> checked. (1) No Prior Discipline:  Respondent has no prior record of discipline over many years of practice coupled with present misconduct which is not deemed serious.

<<not>> checked. (2) No Harm:  Respondent did not harm the client or person who was the object of the misconduct. 

checked. (3)            Candor/Cooperation:  Respondent displayed spontaneous candor and cooperation with the victims of his/her misconduct and to the State Bar during disciplinary investigation and proceedings.  Respondent Fink has cooperated throughout this matter and has agreed to stipulate regarding facts and discipline.

<<not>> checked. (4) Remorse:  Respondent promptly took objective steps spontaneously demonstrating remorse and recognition of the wrongdoing, which steps were designed to timely atone for any consequences of his/her misconduct. 

<<not>> checked. (5) Restitution:  Respondent paid $  on  in restitution to  without the threat or force of disciplinary, civil or criminal proceedings.

<<not>> checked. (6) Delay:  These disciplinary proceedings were excessively delayed.  The delay is not attributable to Respondent and the delay prejudiced him/her.

checked. (7)            Good Faith:  Respondent acted in good faith. Respondent Fink believed that he was assisting a litigant avoid the possibility of being deported.

<<not>> checked. (8) Emotional/Physical Difficulties:  At the time of the stipulated act or acts of professional misconduct Respondent suffered extreme emotional difficulties or physical disabilities which expert testimony would establish was directly responsible for the misconduct.  The difficulties or disabilities were not the product of any illegal conduct by the member, such as illegal drug or substance abuse, and Respondent no longer suffers from such difficulties or disabilities.

<<not>> checked. (9) Severe Financial Stress:  At the time of the misconduct, Respondent suffered from severe financial stress which resulted from circumstances not reasonably foreseeable or which were beyond his/her control and which were directly responsible for the misconduct.

<<not>> checked. (10) Family Problems:  At the time of the misconduct, Respondent suffered extreme difficulties in his/her personal life which were other than emotional or physical in nature.

checked.                  (11) Good Character:  Respondent's good character is attested to by a wide range of references in the legal and general communities who are aware of the full extent of his/her misconduct. Letters of reference are attached.

<<not>> checked. (12) Rehabilitation:  Considerable time has passed since the acts of professional misconduct occurred followed by convincing proof of subsequent rehabilitation.

<<not>> checked. (13) No mitigating circumstances are involved.
Additional mitigating circumstances:

Although Respondent Fink was mistaken, he was motivated in his actions by a desire to assist the litigants to stay together for the benefit of the marriage and their children. Respondent Fink acted from a sincere desire to assist the litigants, and had no intent to harm the petitioner. Additionally, although the Superior Court has a training program for judges pro term, Respondent Fink was not trained before he was assigned on July 14, 2006 to sit as s judge pro tern in the Los Angeles Superior Court.

Respondent Fink’s prior discipline was remote in time.

D. Discipline:

checked. (1)            Stayed Suspension:

checked. (a)                 Respondent must be suspended from the practice of law for a period of one (1) year stayed.
<<not>> checked. i.   and until Respondent shows proof satisfactory to the State Bar Court of rehabilitation and present fitness to practice and present learning and ability in the law pursuant to standard 1.4(c)(ii) Standards for Attorney Sanctions for Professional Misconduct.
<<not>> checked. ii.   and until Respondent pays restitution as set forth in the Financial Conditions form attached to this stipulation.
<<not>> checked. iii.  and until Respondent does the following: .
The above-referenced suspension is stayed.

checked. (2)            Probation:  Respondent must be placed on probation for a period of two (2) years, which will commence upon the effective date of the Supreme Court order in this matter.  (See rule 9.18, California Rules of Court.)

E. Additional Conditions of Probation:

checked. (1)            During the probation period, Respondent must comply with the provisions of the State Bar Act and Rules of Professional Conduct.

checked. (2)            Within ten (10) days of any change, Respondent must report to the Membership Records Office of the State Bar and to the Office of Probation of the State Bar of California ("Office of Probation"), all changes of information, including current office address and telephone number, or other address for State Bar purposes, as prescribed by section 6002.1 of the Business and Professions Code.

checked. (3)            Within thirty (30) days from the effective date of discipline, Respondent must contact the Office of Probation and schedule a meeting with Respondent's assigned probation deputy to discuss these terms and conditions of probation. Upon the direction of the Office of Probation, Respondent must meet with the probation deputy either in-person or by telephone. During the period of probation, Respondent must promptly meet with the probation deputy as directed and upon request.

checked. (4)            Respondent must submit written quarterly reports to the Office of Probation on each January 10, April 10, July 10, and October 10 of the period of probation. Under penalty of perjury, Respondent must state whether Respondent has complied with the State Bar Act, the Rules of Professional Conduct, and all conditions of probation during the preceding calendar quarter. Respondent must also state whether there are any proceedings pending against him or her in the State Bar Court and if so, the case number and current status of that proceeding. If the first report would cover less than 30 days, that report must be submitted on the next quarter date, and cover the extended period.
In addition to all quarterly reports, a final report, containing the same information, is due no earlier than twenty (20) days before the last day of the period of probation and no later than the last day of probation.

<<not>> checked. (5) Respondent must be assigned a probation monitor. Respondent must promptly review the terms and conditions of probation with the probation monitor to establish a manner and schedule of compliance. During the period of probation, Respondent must furnish to the monitor such reports as may be requested, in addition to the quarterly reports required to be submitted to the Office of Probation. Respondent must cooperate fully with the probation monitor.

checked. (6)            Subject to assertion of applicable privileges, Respondent must answer fully, promptly and truthfully any inquiries of the Office of Probation and any probation monitor assigned under these conditions which are directed to Respondent personally or in writing relating to whether Respondent is complying or has complied with the probation conditions.

checked. (7)            Within one (1) year of the effective date of the discipline herein, Respondent must provide to the Office of Probation satisfactory proof of attendance at a session of the Ethics School, and passage of the test given at the end of that session.

<<not>> checked. No Ethics School recommended.  Reason: .

<<not>> checked. (8) Respondent must comply with all conditions of probation imposed in the underlying criminal matter and must so declare under penalty of perjury in conjunction with any quarterly report to be filed with the Office of Probation.

<<not>> checked. (9) The following conditions are attached hereto and incorporated:       

<<not>> checked. Substance Abuse Conditions.

<<not>> checked. Law Office Management Conditions.

<<not>> checked. Medical Conditions.

<<not>> checked. Financial Conditions.

F. Other Conditions Negotiated by the Parties:

checked. (1)            Multistate Professional Responsibility Examination:  Respondent must provide proof of passage of the Multistate Professional Responsibility Examination ("MPRE"), administered by the National Conference of Bar Examiners, to the Office of Probation within one year.  Failure to pass the MPRE results in actual suspension without further hearing until passage. But see rule 9.10(b), California Rules of Court, and rule 321(a)(1) & (c), Rules of Procedure.

<<not>> checked. No MPRE recommended.  Reason: .

<<not>> checked. (2) Other Conditions: .

Attachment language (if any): .




1. Bruce R. Fink ("Respondent Fink") was admitted to practice law in California on January 7, 1971.


2. On July 14, 2006, Respondent Fink was sitting as a judge pro tem in Department EAC of the Los Angeles County Superior Court. While sitting as a judge pro tem, Respondent Fink was called upon to hear a petition for restraining order in the matter entitled Gonzalez v. Salgado, Case No. KQ007464.


3. As is reflected by the transcript of the July 14, 2006 proceeding, attached hereto as Exhibit "A," the litigants put into issue the fact of the petitioner’s status as an illegal alien, and petitioner Gonzalez alleged that respondent Salgado was threatening to call the Immigration department for the purpose of having petitioner Gonzalez deported. Both petitioner Gonzales and respondent Salgado confirmed these facts on the record.


4. In the mistaken belief that an illegal alien was required to be reported to the Immigration service, Respondent Fink advised petitioner Gonzalez that, in order to avoid the possibility of being taken by the courtroom bailiff to the Immigration service, she should leave the courtroom. Petitioner Gonzalez did leave the courtroom, and Respondent Fink then denied the Petition.


5. Respondent Fink thereafter appeared on the John and Ken radio show and publicly discussed the matter.




Respondent willfully violated Rule 1-710, California Rules of Professional Conduct, when sitting as a judge pro tem, by failing to comply with Canon 3B(7), a requirement of Canon D(2)(a) of the Code of Judicial Ethics, which requires a judge to respect and comply with the law, and to act at all times in a manner that promotes public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary. Counts 1 through 5 and 7 through 9, inclusive, of the Notice of Disciplinary Charges are dismissed with prejudice in the interest of justice.




Public Admonishment of Judge James M. Brooks, in which Judge James M. Brooks was publicly admonished for failing to refrain from speech that would reasonably be perceived as biased or prejudiced, and by violating Canon 2A.


Inquiry Concerning Judge W. Jackson Willoughby, in which Judge W. Jackson Willoughby was publicly censored for engaging in a pattern of misconduct toward female employees, including making repeated derogatory and sexually suggestive remarks.


Case Number(s): 06-O-13546-DFM

In the Matter of: Bruce R. Fink


By their signatures below, the parties and their counsel, as applicable, signify their agreement with each of the recitation and each of the terms and conditions of this Stipulation Re Facts, Conclusions of Law and Disposition.


Signed by:


Respondent: Bruce R. Fink

Date: November 21, 2007


Respondent’s Counsel: Ellen A. Pansky

Date: November 21, 2007


Deputy Trial Counsel: Janet S. Hunt

Date: November 26, 2007


Case Number(s): 06-O-13546-DFM

In the Matter of: Bruce R. Fink

Finding the stipulation to be fair to the parties and that it adequately protects the public, IT IS ORDERED that the requested dismissal of counts/charges, if any, is GRANTED without prejudice, and:

checked. The stipulated facts and disposition are APPROVED and the DISCIPLINE RECOMMENDED to the Supreme Court.

<<not>> checked. The stipulated facts and disposition are APPROVED AS MODIFIED as set forth below, and the DISCIPLINE IS RECOMMENDED to the Supreme Court.

<<not>> checked. All Hearing dates are vacated.

The parties are bound by the stipulation as approved unless: 1) a motion to withdraw or modify the stipulation, filed within 15 days after service of this order, is granted; or 2) this court modifies or further modifies the approved stipulation. (See rule 135(b), Rules of Procedure.) The effective date of this disposition is the effective date of the Supreme Court order herein, normally 30 days after the file date. (See rule 9.18(a), California Rules of Court.)

Signed by:

Judge of the State Bar Court: Richard A. Platel

Date: November 27, 2007




June 5, 2007


Ellen A. Pansky, Esq.


1010 Sycamore Ave, #101

South Pasadena, CA 91030


Re.: Bruce R. Fink

In the Matter of BRUCE R. PINK 06-O-13546


Dear Ms. Pansky:


I am a family law attorney in Orange County and have been practicing for over 26 years. Due to the small number of practicing family lawyers in this area, I have had numerous opportunities to observe Mr. Pink in both professional and social settings.


I first met Mr. Pink over 25 years ago and have maintained a casual acquaintance with him ever since. He has been the opposing counsel on cases I have handled throughout the years and I have always found his conduct to be professional and ethical.


During his years as a lawyer, Mr. Pink has successfully handled numerous cases. He is a staunch advocate for his clients and it is surprising to find the current action against him.


I find Mr. Pink to be a valuable member of the Bar and he should remain as such.


If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me.


Kindest regards,




Signed by: Barry J. Wishart


BJW : kb


3 Park Plaza, Suite 1100

Irvine CA 92614

Telephone: (949) 851-3939, Facsimile: (949) 553-7539


Direct Number: (949) 553-7593

trmalcotm@jonesday com




June 1, 2007


The State Bar of Califomia

180 Howard Street

San Francisco, CA 94015


Re: Potential Complaint against Attorney Brace R. Fink


To Whom It May Concern:


I have had the pleasure to know Mr. Fink professionally for more than 35 years. I can attest to his character and integrity within our professional community in Orange County. Mr. Fink has always dealt with me in the cases that we have handled together over the years, even when he has been my opponent, in an extremely ethical and professional manner.


I was disheartened to learn that the State Bar is considering filing charges against him in connection with an incident which occurred while he was sitting as a Temporary Judge in Los Angeles (Pomona).


Mr. Fink further enjoys the highest standing among his peers in our community. 1 have been President of the Orange County Bar Association in 1992 and was President of Association of Business Trial Lawyers, Mr. Fink has been active in both organizations and represents the finest in our profession.


Yours very truly,


Signed by: Thomas R. Malcolm

Glen D. Woodmansee


3 Chicory Way

Irvine, CA 92612



June 3, 2007


State Bar of California


Mailed to:

Ellen A.Pansky,.

1010 Sycamore Ave., #101

South Pasadena, CA 91030


Re: Case 06-0-13546

In the Matter of Brace R. Fink


Dear Ms. Pansky:


Mr. Fink has informed me that the State Bar may file charges against Mr. Fink, based on his actions in Pomona Court on July 14, 2006. This letter is to inform the reviewing body of my experience with Mr. Fink.


I have been acquainted with Mr. Fink since early 1970 until the present time. I have never been involved with any legal matters with Mr. Fink except the following:


From early 1970 through early 1975 I was the Assistant Director of the Orange County Legal Aid Society, in charge of all services north of Santa Ana. During this time, Mr. Fink .contributed over 80 hours of unpaid services for poor persons who had come to "Legal Aid" with serious legal problems.


In June 1970 Mr. Fink graduated from law school and in January 1971 he was admitted to the Bar. He was very dedicated and helpful in assisting clients of the Legal Aid Society. After 1975 I have talked with Mr. Fink occasionally, and have been very impressed with his diligence and exceptional skill in representing his clients.


Yours truly,


Signed by: Glen Woodmansee

June 5, 2007


State Bar of California

Ellen A. Pansky, Esq.

1010 Sycamore Ave # 101

South Pasadena CA 91030


Re: Bruce R Fink, No. 47788


Dear Ms. Pansky:


I am writing this letter on behalf of my friend Bruce R Fink.


I am an Attorney at Law, practicing in the State of California. I am currently working as a Real Estate Broker.


I met and have known Bruce since approximately 1970. At that time, I was employed by the Orange County Bar Association as Director of the Lawyer Referral Service, intake Supervisor of the Orange County Legal Aid Society, recruiting, scheduling and managing volunteer workers for Legal Aid Society such as, Lawyers Wives of Orange County, Law Students from Pepperdine University, Western State University and other local Colleges. I retained this position until 1979 at which time I entered the practice of law.


Because of my Orange County Bar Association employ, I attended many committee meetings, and Bruce was present in order to provide pro bono services as needed to the poor. Even then, Bruce was eager, helpful, curious, knowledgeable, caring and reliable. Whenever we needed help we contacted Bruce He generously gave his time, legal advice, inviting the needy to his office. Bruce never questioned whether he received payment or not. When no one cared, we called Bruce. He never let us down.


Subsequent to my leaving the Orange County Bar Association and to the present, Bruce and I stayed in touch. I am unable to ascertain how many times I contacted Bruce for information on legal matters, either for myself or a client. Bruce never let me down. Throughout the years, he never asked for anything in return. He always returned my calls and spent hours helping me with my cases Many times in the past, I asked other attorneys to contact Bruce when they needed help regarding a particular subject. To my recollection, he helped each and every one of them. Even now I refer clients and Bar members to him,


Bruce is the most generous man I know If he has any faults, he is zealous, passionate, he goes the extra mile. If charges are filed against Bruce, I consider it a great injustice We all make mistakes. God knows I have made many Bruce’s years of service to the Bar, its members, the public at large and clients far outweigh any one-time indiscretion, if any. Bruce is and always has been an asset to his profession.


I defer to your understanding, giving the above statement the importance it deserves I respect the State Bar, its Rules its Ethics Please lets not ignore the human element inherent in all things.


Should you require additional information, please contact my office.


Very truly


Signed by: Inge Wagner


Attorney at Law

State Bar No. 75167

714 840-4486





TELEPHONE: (714)317-3869 FACSIMILE: (714)432-7329 E-MAIL:





June 6, 2007


State Bar of California

Ellen A. Pansky, Esq.

1010 Sycamore Avenue, #101

South Pasadena, CA 91030


Re: Brace R. Fink, Esq. / Your Case No. 06-0-13546


Dear Ms Pansky:


I am sending this letter on behalf of Bruce R. Fink, Esq., an attorney whom I have known and respected for more than twenty years. Mr. Fink has sent me a letter describing the situation involving an appearance by Aurora Gonzalez (L.A. County Sup. Ct., East Dist., Case No. KQ 007464), accompanied by copies of pertinent documents.


I know nothing of the facts of this matter other than what is contained in the material forwarded. I do know something about Mr. Fink’s character, however, and it is sterling. In my experience, he has always represented his clients zealously and practices well within the bounds of ethical (and collegial) behavior. If error was made (I am in no position to judge, but Mr. Fink’s explanation seems understandable and his conduct seemed motivated by what was best for the person appearing before him in his estimation), I am certain it was entirely unintentional. In my opinion, Mr. Fink would look upon his temporary judge position as a great trust and privilege and would never abuse his authority.


I have practiced long enough to know that understandings occur regardless of the best of intentions, and I am confident that this was a misunderstanding (perhaps on Mr. Fink’s part, perhaps on the litigant’s, perhaps both) and nothing more, and certainly not rising to any chargeable offense. Please feel free to contact me for additional comment, if desired.


Very truly yours,


Signed by: Kirk Rense, Esq.



1503 South Coast Drive, Suite 209

Costa Mesa, CA 92626-1527

Telephone (714) 433-7185


June 8, 2007


To: State Bar of California

Re: Proposed Disciplinary.. Action Against Bruce R. Fink, SBN: 47788


Dear Sir or Madam:


1 have been acquainted with Attorney Fink for nearly 20 years, and have been in court with him many times. Our firm regularly refers cases to him in the fields of Family Law and Bankruptcy. I understand that Bruce is facing disciplinary action due to an incident in 2006 when he was serving as a Temporary Judge in a Family Law matter.


I currently serve, and have served for approximately 8 years as a Temporary Judge in Orange County Superior Court. In hearing second-hand about the incident, my first reaction was that Bruce did what he did in some misguided effort to help somebody, but, as I’ve seen him do on other occasions, probably misspoke. I know Bruce Fink as a highly intelligent guy with a big heart, who sincerely wants to help other people. His "problem" is that, like many other high IQ people, he gets carried away by the moment and talks too much or says the wrong thing,


I have never seen him possess or exhibit an ounce of malice or other bad intent toward others; in fact, while the current incident might make Fink appear to be ethnically or racially prejudiced, my experiences with him show him to be the exact opposite- a caring person who goes out of his way to give help to minorities.


So while I probably would have handled the situation differently, I am certain that Mr. Fink’s intentions were only for the best. Hopefully the State Bar will find that this is in fact the case.


Very truly yours,


Signed by: Jospeh A. Weber

Peter C. Tornay



SUITE 1422

ORANGE, CA 92868


June 9th, 2007


State Bar of California,

State Bar Court -Office of Chief Trial Counsel

1149 S. Hill St.

Los Angeles, Ca. 90015 -2299


To Whom It May Concern:


I have been asked by Attorney Bruce R. Fink to write letter To your office regarding my impressions of his character, ethics and standing.


I first met Attorney Fink when I was teaching at the law school known as Orange University School of Law in Orange County, Ca. My courses were Ethics and Wills. That law school later was terminated as such and we, the faculty, then became the faculty of the Pepperdine Law School. I believe the year was 1970.


Attorney Fink was a brilliant law student and scored 100 on my Ethics test. I believe it was the only 100 I gave as a grade after teaching the above-named law schools and I also taught for years at the American College of Law. (Professional Responsibility) and other courses as well.


Prior to the formation of the State Bar Court, I was a Referee for the Disciplinary Board, later serving on the Board itself for five years. Ron Stovitz, recently retired was our Mentor & good friend, assisting our Board.


I am not a personal friend of Attorney Fink. I have seen him off and on over the years, lately in the same building that my son Stephen and I have our law offices.


I believe Attorney Fink to be a person of good character; have no knowledge of any violations by him of the Rules that govern us all; and have heard that he does good work in the Family Law and Bankruptcy Courts, where he is a Certified Specialist. As to his standing in the legal community, I have never heard a bad word against him, quite the opposite.


Most sincerely,


Signed by: Peter C. Tornay

SB 29627.

Law Offices


910 W. 17th Street, Ste F

SANTA ANA, CA. 92706

TEL (714)245 0550

FAX (714)245 0522




The State Bar of California

Office of the Chief Trial Counsel

1149 South Hill Street

Los Angeles, Ca. 90015-2299


Re: In the Matter of Bruce R. Fink

No: 47788


To whom it may concern:


The California State Bar has filed charges against Mr. Bruce Fink as a result of his actions while serving as a Temporary Judge in the Los Angeles (Pomona) Court in July 2006.


I am a family law attorney that practices law mainly in Orange County. I have been doing so since 1993. In the course of my practice I have had one ease with Mr. Fink as opposing counsel. Mr. Fink advocated zealously for his client, who by the way was Hispanic. Mr. Fink was always prompt, respectful and well prepared. At the conclusion of the case, Mr. Fink maintained a professional and respectful relationship with me.


Should you have any questions please feel free to contact my office.




Signed by: Diane Vargas


[Rules Proc. of State Bar; Rule 5.27(B); Code Civ. Proc., § 1013a(4)]


I am a Case Administrator of the State Bar Court of California. I am over the age of eighteen and not a party to the within proceeding. Pursuant to standard court practice, in the City and County of Los Angeles, on November 27, 2007, I deposited a true copy of the following document(s):




in a sealed envelope for collection and mailing on that date as follows:


checked. by first-class mail, with postage thereon fully prepaid, through the United States Postal Service at Los Angeles, California, addressed as follows:




1010 SYCAMORE AVE #101



checked. by interoffice mail through a facility regularly maintained by the State Bar of California addressed as follows:


JANET HUNT, Enforcement, Los Angeles


I hereby certify that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed in Los Angeles, California, on November 27, 2007.


Signed by:

Tammy R. Cleaver

Case Administrator

State Bar Court